BREAKING: Federal Judge Upholds Ban on “Dangerous and Unusual” “Assault Weapons”

Colt LE901 (courtesy Nick Leghorn for The Truth About Guns)

U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake has ruled the state’s ban on assault rifles is legal, after a lawsuit brought against state officials by several pro-gun groups, manufacturers and retailers alleged it was unconstitutional,” wjla.com reports. [Click here for the ruling.] “The judge ruled that the ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines was not a violation of second-amendment rights. She agreed that a total ban on handguns, for example, would be a violation of the right to bear arms, but that a ban only on certain types of guns was legal. She said . . .

“The right to bear arms is not unlimited,” adding, “with respect to the types of weapons protected, the Court found that the Second Amendment does not protect ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'”

She added that the only types of arms protected by the second amendment are “weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” alleging that assault weapons and those with large-capacity weapons do not fall into that categorization and therefore are not protected by the constitution.

The plaintiffs argued that assault weapons could be used to defend oneself, but the state pointed out that they could not name a single incident in which a Marylander had ever used an assault weapon to defend oneself in a dangerous situation, and neither could the Maryland State Police.

“Therefore, I find the law constitutional,” the court wrote in a statement.

Note: as TTAG has documented, there have been plenty of defensive gun uses involving AR-15-style rifles. Just none in Maryland. Yet.

Anyway, what difference does it make? “Assault rifles” are in common use by law-abiding people for lawful purposes: hunting, target practice, personal defense and defense against tyranny. You know; government officials who seek to deny Americans their natural, civil and Constitutional rights.

Oh wait, one of these is not like the other, apparently. From the opinion:

“Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.”

No and no. For the moment at least, the way is now clear for firearms confiscation for all those Free State residents who didn’t register their AR-style rifles by the state-mandated deadline. [h/t MN]

comments

  1. avatar Eric L says:

    Will there be an appeal?

    1. avatar Steve in MD says:

      There better be an appeal. I want my damn AK.

      1. avatar Gary says:

        I feel for you Steve… they are fun. Your only real recourse is to unite damn-near everyone outside of the D.C. Metro area, and get rid of these losers, starting with your Gov. Short of that, move over here to WV. we do the 2A right, sir. Good luck.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          There is another real recourse and the whole world will take notice should the People ever decide to exercise that option. Government is attempting to strip the people of Maryland of some of the very tools that they will need to defend against tyranny. This nation saw something similar at its birth and it didn’t work out so well for the King.

      2. avatar Scott says:

        Steve – you can come over to the light (Virginia) and shoot mine anytime you like 😉 Just bring ammo 😉 Well….at least for now until Don Beyer gets elected.. FROWNS.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Of course, there’s an appeal. It’s called an election and they hold them every two years in November. Try it out some time. It’s not that hard to win, but……….you have to be in it to win it. That’s where Maryland republicans fail. They sit on their butts in the off year elections. Let’s roll the tape and look at the last five general election cycles in Maryland, shall we?

      2012 Obama 1.677 million votes. Romney 971K
      2010 Governor O’Malley 1.044 million votes. Republican Ehrlich 776K
      2008 Obama 1.629 million votes. McCain 959K votes
      2006 O’Malley 942K votes. Republican Ehrlich 825K votes
      2004 Bush 1.024 million votes. Kerry 1.334 million votes.

      Look at those numbers for a minute. O’Malley in his first run in 2006 received fewer votes than either Bush did two years prior or McCain did just two years later. So don’t tell me the republican votes aren’t there. The republican votes are there, they just don’t vote except when they damn well feel like it.

      It’s a little more uphill in 2010, I’ll admit, but it’s a very low grade, gently sloping hill and hardly Mount Everest. O’Malley received more votes than either did McCain two years prior or Romney two years later, but not that many more. With a higher turnout, or lack of incumbency which he wouldn’t even have had, had republicans bothered to vote in 2006, O’Malley would not be governor now.

      This same pattern plays out in other slave states, such as Connecticut, where Dems outnumber the GOP in raw numbers, but not necessarily on election day. If slave state republicans would just flex their electoral muscle, CONSISTENTLY, and bump up their turnout just a few more percentage points in off year elections, you could turn your state red. If you rely on demographics, the NRA and court rulings, however, kiss your sweet rights goodbye.

      The fight in this country isn’t between the haves and have nots. It’s between the generators and the takers. Liberal voters highly value the government goodies they take from wealth generators in exchange for whoring themselves out to democrats on election day. Meanwhile, conservative voters who generate the wealth, as a whole, either don’t really care all that much about their rights, or they take them for granted. So they don’t fight for them on election day.

      Now, anyone’s free to argue the underlying explanation of all this, but there’s no denying the numbers.

      1. avatar Chubby says:

        Republicans are too busy window shopping at the Volvo dealerships to care….

    3. avatar dcarmichiel says:

      so brothers and sisters will this be where it begins?? the start of the end of the union over this the most divisive issue in american history?? in fact more people are concerned and involved in this issue then were over the slavery issue. When will we stop allowing these so called judges to interpret and mandate laws that infringe what has been clearly and explicitly stated in the constitution>??
      we are a country of laws but when the men and women of the judiciary try to take a way snip by snip a small portion of our right to personal defense and responsiblity over such bs logic> so no one in that state has ever usedrather has been documented to have used an assault type rifle. last i checked they were still part of the union and the entirety of the union should have been included in the facts and testimonies

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        +1

        It is the keeping and bearing of these very arms that the Second Amendment was written to protect. The militia will be greatly weakened by such law and court rulings.

    4. avatar David P says:

      You have to love these liberal judges they make it soooooo easy to appeal. I am not sure at this point you call it an appeal or just a retrial. So ID and fingerprints are necessary for a constitutional right, but voting is exempted, wait until a couple states start quoting her decision on this for voting rights. The other thing is that no cases of using a “assualt weapon” for defense has been found in MD, so does this mean that when one is used they can retry this case to include new data. Actually this makes me want to buy another “assualt weapon”- just the thought of the victim having an AR is enough to scare the criminal off, lmao.

    5. avatar jill says:

      with that paper-thin argument? it’s almost gurenteed

  2. avatar Paul G. says:

    She (the judge) is an idiot. So such a ban is not an infringement? Unclear on the concept much?

    1. avatar Bob says:

      She is not an idiot, she is consciously engaging in the process of disarming the populace so that the people who call themselves government (which includes her) can enjoy even more authority over us.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Bingo.

        1. avatar Publius says:

          Uh, I might be mistaken, but aren’t you a cop? Therefore, you are part of said government.

        2. avatar LongBeach says:

          You should read his posts. He’s a patriot first, cop second.

        3. avatar rlc2 says:

          Publius,

          What about Marines, Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen?
          By your logic, are they part of the government?
          Are they disqualified from holding pro2A beliefs?
          Are they somehow, not patriots?

          How about Reservists? National Guard?
          How about Inactive Reserve?

          Don’t recall the distinction in my oath to uphold and defend…nor is there a end date for it…

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Bob is correct. You cannot really notice what she is deliberately doing, because she is just so SLY, so brilliantly deceitful, no honest person is nearly smart enough to see what she’s doing! It’s enough to make a normal, stupid person sick.

        1. avatar Chubby says:

          …. haters too are pushing for a law suit to go to SCOTUS ….

  3. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    The fools will just keep banning “CERTAIN TYPES” of guns until you only have two or three guns to chose from. They won’t have a total ban this way and they can get rid of tons of guns.

    1. avatar The Trouble with Timbo says:

      Of course they can determine which weapons we can use. Just like it is OK for the government to determine which books we can write and therefore which books we read when we exercise our right to freedom (as long as the government is OK with it) of speech. It is also OK for the government to determine how, where and what manner we exercise our freedom of religion.

      How about a court ruling that says “The MD state police could not find a single instance were someone actually saw God. Therefore the state can outlaw religion.”

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        While I like that, I find it unlikely!

      2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Sounds sensible and reasonable.

      3. avatar ProfBathrobe says:

        Oh, that’s good. I’ll need to remember that.

  4. avatar Excedrine says:

    Unfortunately, I don’t think they’ll find any more favor in the Appellate Court, and the SCOTUS probably wouldn’t touch this with a 10-foot pole. It’ll likely have to be done legislatively.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      The best we can hope for is to get it appealed and upheld and hope for a different decision in another circuit.

      Anybody know of a similar case in another district or circuit that went the other way?

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Hopefully we finally get a court to apply strict scrutiny, which is the only level appropriate for Constitutional cases like this, and throw out this idiot’s ruling.

        The only case I’m aware of in which the Circuit went in reverse of the lower court (in our favor anyway) is the Peruta case, which is still pending and probably will be for some time.

  5. avatar Laron says:

    She stated that the only types of arms protected by the second amendment are “weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” Here in the west, it is typical for a law abiding citizen to carry an AR-15 hunting with a 20 round mag, instead of a bolt action rifle that weighs 2x as much as the AR and holds only 3 or 4 rounds. USPSA 3 gun shooting is a popular sport with law abiding citizens for lawful purposes too.

    This judge stuck her foot in her mouth.

    1. avatar Robert W. says:

      Oh, but if you read the report from the Department of the Treasury, Practical shooting is police/military shooting competition, and thus not sporting. Basically, if noblemen from england didn’t do it 100 years ago, you shouldn’t be allowed to do it now.

      Says the TREASURY………

    2. avatar Joe Wright says:

      Laron, what type of bolt action rifle do you hunt with ?

      1. avatar Mosinfan says:

        The kind made of lead and concrete, apparently. A colt AR15A4 (which I think represents an average bare-bones AR) weighs 7.71 lbs. A Remington 700 BDL in .30-06 (arguably the most common bolt hunting rifle) is 7.635lbs. So I would say they are essentially equal in weight until you start adding goodies…

        Even with a scope, sling, and bipod a hunting bolt action rifle would never reach 21 – 28 lbs. Bench rest rifle, maybe…

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          A friend of mine has a varmint rifle that is 39 lbs.

          That’s certainly non-typical. He comes from the benchrest world of things where weight is considered differently than for us mere mortals of marksmanship.

          Still, though…it’s pretty freaking impressive.

  6. avatar Chris Johnson says:

    WTF is a dangerous and unusual assault weapon!?

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      Whatever the sock-puppet minions of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex (and their friendly judges) want it to mean. I’ll leave that up to your imagination as to just how far that will eventually go.

      1. avatar Hanzo says:

        Exactly. What a shrill harpy this “judge” is, and her “opinion” is so utterly convoluted.

    2. avatar Rick says:

      Dangerous and unusual…

      As the Russian soldier said “Is GONN! Is SUPPOSE be dangerous!”

      1. avatar SaintSin23 says:

        You sir owe me a new keyboard and an energy drink lol.

    3. avatar Accur81 says:

      Why, it’s a .30 Cal AR that shoots 30 clips in 1/2 a second.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Maybe. Maybe not. Are you talking of the 20-mag clips or the 30-mag clips?

      2. avatar Jason Lynch says:

        Does it have a shoulder thing that goes up? That’s what makes it extra special dangerous…

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          If it does not have the shoulder thing, all that can make it ‘dangerous and unusual’ is if it is calibrated in ,9mm.

          Those are fearsome.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Goes “BANG”?

      1. avatar Paul G. says:

        Correction…looks like it could go bang…

  7. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    This will clearly be appealed. The language the judge used could actually help to force the inclusion of AR-15 style semi-automatics as could the Miller decision from the thirties and that could be the end of all bans of semi-autos. Wishful thinking? Maybe, but then again lots of folks did no expect the Heller decision. The SCOTUS is likely to take this up in a couple of years and I believe MD politicians are not likely to be happy with the result.

    1. avatar mirgc says:

      I agree. Some of her arguments just don’t make sense, and she may have extended herself to far by trying to make the claim of uncommon and unusually dangerous.

      1. avatar Robert W. says:

        It’s the whole relying on “In common use,” that boggles my mind. If we allow anything to have to go through a barrier of “In common use,” nothing new could ever be designed. It should simply be “Of suitable use.” Is something useful for self defence? No more of this BS.

        The anti’ side commonly pushes us to have to come up with some kind of number that is necessary for magazine capacity. Under “In common use,” people HAVE used 5 shot revolvers, fewer than 10 rounds out of a magazine, and weapons other than a semi-auto rifle. But if someone brings up a hypothetical, or poorly documented, case of greater necessity, they just say that it is not likely, and get away with it.

  8. avatar Madcap_Magician says:

    It boggles my mind that the plaintiff’s lawyers allowed the judge to paint the “lawful purposes” into the corner of being solely regarding self-defense. “Lawful purposes” certainly includes marksmanship competition, and the proliferation of action shooting competitions means the AR-15 type rifle is among the most popular rifles with which to compete, not to mention that it’s also a National Match-authorized rifle for service rifle competition.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      Indeed, simply owning an AR15 for the sake of owning and AR15 and letting it sit unused in your closet is a lawful use in and of itself, and by far the most common one their owners engage in. If “common use” means a weapon must be used often for effective self defense in order to not be bannable, then are we to expect that a new invention, that is potentially more deadly and effective than a gun, would be allowed by that test? Since criminal homicide vastly outnumbers justified homicide, why would handguns be immune from this absurd classification? If, as she admits, the 2nd amendment forbids that application to handguns, it clearly forbids it for rifles of any type as well.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        My immediate thoughts exactly; IIRC, Heller put the kibosh on the idiotic “musket argument” so this judge’s decision is to ‘pause’ development of civilian armament at this particular moment, claiming ‘current use’ to define ‘common use’ rather than civil/market choices. Unbelievable. Don’t lawyers get reprimanded or disbarred for making spurious arguments in contempt of the dignity of the court?

        TTAG: your site is practically unusable, as usual. Why even offer the pretense of user comments if the site is so laggy it loses 4 out of 5 keystrikes and has several seconds of delay?

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Don’t lawyers get reprimanded or disbarred for making spurious arguments in contempt of the dignity of the court?

          In Maryland they get elected to the House of Delegates and/or Congress.

  9. avatar ST says:

    Clever girl-handler Muldoon in “Jurassic Park”.

    See what she did? By mentioning the lack of self defense cases with ARs IN MD, she’s laid out an argument against the “in common use” doctrine.

    1. avatar Gerry S. says:

      The argument is flawed in that Maryland has banned “assault weapons” for quite some time. In fact, they’ve established additional state legislation before the 2004 expiration of the Federal “assault weapons ban.” So that no regular citizen was legally able to own an “assault weapon” for defense anyways.

      Why are the statistics low? Because it was prohibited already!

      May as well stop Polio vaccinations since Polio has been wiped out of the US since 1994.

      1. avatar Chris says:

        Wrong. You’re probably thinking of Massachusetts. This current ban just went into effect last October. I just bought my Colt 6920 here in MD last May.

        Also, the article is incorrect with the whole registration/confiscation thing. I think that was just New York and Connecticut. We didn’t have to register our ARs because they were already registered with the state when we purchased them. The firearms that were banned were previously “regulated” with waiting periods and state background checks. That law has been in effect since the late 80s.

    2. avatar Pieslapper says:

      Try Firefox and Adblock plus

  10. avatar Korvis says:

    Not The Free State. Henceforth, it must now be written: The “Free” State.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      More like “The Free? State.”

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      The Once Was Free State.

      1. avatar PeterC says:

        Or, like Prince, the state formerly known as “Free.”

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      The “Formerly Free State” is more accurate. And forget that “Old Line State” crap the Libs are trying to sell again.

  11. avatar Robert W. says:

    Ugh, if you read the entire thing the judge basically concedes everything except what is very explicitly stated in Heller. The judge relies on testimony from fairly random police and debunked studies.

    This will go up the food chain, hopefully the myth that the Supreme Court wants to take an “Assault Rifle” case is true, it would sure be nice to get this settled once and for all.

  12. avatar MiketheHopsFarmer says:

    Two birds, one stone. Use said ARs for self defense again said state tyrants denying then their constitutional rights. Maintain the constitution and provide the case law that they are used in the state for self defense. Win-win, no? “The plaintiffs argued that The plaintiffs argued that assault weapons could be assault weapons could be used to defend oneself, but the used to defend oneself, but the state pointed out that they state pointed out that they could not name a single could not name a single incident in which a Marylander incident in which a Marylander had ever used an assault had ever used an assault weapon to defend oneself in a weapon to defend oneself in a dangerous situation, and dangerous situation, and neither could the Maryland neither could the Maryland State Police. State Police.”

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      No more hops or barley malt for you!

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Awe, come on. It is Tuesday after all.

      2. I know it’s like he passed out and woke up multiple times in the middle of the same thought…

      3. avatar Jus Bill says:

        There’s a wicked bad echo in here.

  13. avatar New Chris says:

    People wonder what it would be lik to live in world without laws… We already live in a world without laws.

    There are no rules, only opinions backed by guns.

  14. avatar Mark N. says:

    The breadth of her opinion suggests that the only guns that are constitutionally protected are those “commonly used” for self-defense, “primarily in the home.” So I guess that long guns “commonly used” for other purposes are entitled to less protection, particularly outside the home. And she further erred in limiting her review of DGUs to Maryland–this is a federal right, not a state right, and therefore DGUs anywhere in the country are relevant to the discussion The opinion is full of legal error, but given the idiocy of the massively liberal court of appeal (Third Circuit, if I recall correctly) as reflected in its Wollard ruling (whose opinion played lip service to intermediate scrutiny but applied what amounted to rational basis review to a state statute unsupported by any evidence or legislative findings), reversal seems unlikely on appeal.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Nope, it is the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. here’s a stunner for you–she concluded that since the approximately 9 million “assault weapons” in the US represent only three percent of the total of all weapons, they are not in “common use.”

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Is she planning to personally come and take ’em?

        1. avatar v v ind says:

          ……I’ll put the tea on and get the crumpets out….

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          I hope so. Maybe she could swing by St. Louis on the way.

  15. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    From Judge Blake’s ruling, “Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes …”

    Is she absolutely out of her mind?!?!?!? Last time I checked, military style semi-automatic rifles were the MOST POPULAR RIFLE IN THE U.S.A !!!!!

    It is time to remove that corrupt judge from office.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      How?

  16. avatar Hannibal says:

    “…could not name a single incident in which a Marylander had ever used an assault weapon to defend oneself in a dangerous situation, and neither could the Maryland State Police.”

    Really? Then why do the MSP issue them?

    “Unusual,” indeed.

  17. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    She is ruling out of both sides of her behind. You can not say banning one type of firearm does not violate the second amendment, while banning another type does. There is just no logic in this.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Actually, I didn’t see her saying banning any particular type of firearm was unconstitutional. We just need to ban one at a time, just Xerox this decision with another mode filled in, they’ll never notice, we are just so SLY!

  18. avatar Accur81 says:

    Judges and constitutional scholars often don’t give a shit about the constitution. Of course those same judges don’t have an issue when *they* are protected by ARs.

    I’d like to go Rand Paul style an eliminate ARs and standard capacity magazines in use by police to protect any judge who will eliminate them from civilians.

  19. IANAL, and the current SCOTUS disagrees with me, but I’ve long thought you MIGHT have cause to restrict handgun ownership, but assault rifles are the core of the second amendment.

    Beyond the text of the second amendment — millitia and all that — there’s U.S. vs Miller (1939) when the SCOTUS upheld ban on sawed of shotgun specifically becuase it doesn’t have any military utility. Under that theory of the second amendment pistols may or may not be protected, but an AR-15 absolutley is.

    Not that I’d want to give anyone ideas about banning handguns, but this has always fit well with my concept of the 2nd amendment. You don’t put something in the constitution because of hunting, or even ensuring one’s right to cap a burglar — you do it to preserve the ability to resist tyranny.

    1. avatar HamChuck says:

      Handguns have militia applications out the wazzoo. Officers, Aviator, machine gunners, tankers and crew served weapons operators all carry handguns. I don’t see a handgun ban getting around Miller and/or Heller.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Particularly when actively involved in a war for independence from gun-grabber tyranny.

    3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      So, you are basically saying that a 1939 law determines what the Second Amendment, written in the 1700’s, means? Or might mean?

      Nope. Not feelin’ it.

      Just because a court ruled in 1939 some INTERPRETATION, that does not mean that IS the interpretation.

      It’s kinda weird how this whole “shall not be infringed” thing works, though. I get that.

    4. avatar John in Ohio says:

      You don’t put something in the constitution because of hunting, or even ensuring one’s right to cap a burglar — you do it to preserve the ability to resist tyranny.

      Correct. I’ve spoken out because I believed (and still do) that many were painting us into a corner by focusing so heavily, and even doubling down, on self defense against ordinary crime while ignoring the meat of the 2A; defense against tyranny. This aversion to anything “militia” plays right into the hands of tyrannical government and statists of all political stripes. As long as we hammered on “militia” and “shall not be infringed,” self defense against ordinary crime would naturally be protected. However, by focusing on the lessor, we’re losing the greater protection.

    5. avatar Jus Bill says:

      May I take a second to reiterate that flintlock rifles were the MSRs of the sixteenth century? In as common a use then as MSRs are today?

      IMO, that opinion was carefully crafted to be passed up the food chain and overturned. She fulfilled her duty to her Liberal Democratic masters in writing it as she did, but aided us unintentionally by writing it so poorly.

  20. avatar HamChuck says:

    The thing I don’t get is how can the court get away with upholding a ban on AR type rifles since they are of common use and have militia applications. Didn’t US V Miller say that only weapons that didn’t have a “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” could be regulated. Seems to me that the AR platform is the epitome of a militia weapon.

    I know the answer of course: Never let prior case law you disagree with or facts you find inconvenient sway you from legislating from the bench.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Only thing better than the AR platform would be select-fire.

  21. avatar George says:

    The most commonly-purchased tool is not in “common use”.

    Soon my head will stop spinning from the convoluted logic there.

  22. avatar Chadwick P says:

    I don’t remember personal defense being at the core of 2a… I’m pretty sure it was keeping tyranny in check and civil defense. Looks like our guns have failed because this judge is the epitome of tyranny.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      You misconstrue the 2A. The text of the 2A refers to “the right . . . to keep and bear arms” which is not to be infringed. The text does not define that right. It says nothing about the purposes – if any were pertinent – to that right. (It is reasonable to suppose that one has a right to arms without a duty to articulate any purpose at all; just as one has a right to assemble or speak or practice a religious ritual without any articulate-able purpose.) To answer your question we would need to delve into what that right referred to meant. In brief, it meant the right of every freeman to defend his life. It began with the right to defend one’s life against any unlawful attack; and, it reached its ultimate form in defending one’s life against the king’s unlawful attacks. This right to self-defense is what the Heller decision says; raising in-the-home to a particularly high level. The framers of the 2A had no particular need to spell-out the details of “the right”; everyone understood that at the time. It is we, readers of the 20/21’st century to rediscover that which everyone understood in the 18’th century. The introductory clause does not constrain the right to preservation of a free state. Rather, the introductory clause explains that “the right” extends so far as to include the controversial purpose of preserving a free state. Without this clause, the reader might be tempted to presume that “the right” was not unlimited. “The right” might never have been intended to extend so far as any attempt of the militia to preserve a free state. One might have argued that the purpose presumably included such mundane activities as self-defense, hunting, marksmanship, and maintaining civil order at a local level. However, it couldn’t be presumed to have extended to so controversial a level as to oppose the new Federal government. It would be illogical to imagine that the founding fathers intended to authorize opposition to the very government institution they created. Any such argument is ruled-out by the introductory clause. The authors intended to extend the purposes of “the right” to include even the means to preserve a free state.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “It is reasonable to suppose that one has a right to arms without a duty to articulate any purpose at all;

        Wait. Don’t tell that to any of the vocal anti-Open Carry folks around here. To them, the right to keep and bear arms ONLY applies to people and for purposes that align with their own views.

        Pesky thing…these rights.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Spot on explanation. Observe all; just how far we have drifted from original intent!

  23. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    Now that criminals, mentally unsound and jihadists know Maryland has a legal ban on such weapons, now they can as a group invade homes and otherwise wreck havoc on peaceable and law abiding citizens.

    This is another case in point where a judge either does not understand “shall not be abidged” or does not give a damn about the Second Amendment or U.S. Constitution.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Infringed!

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Both actually. And her court sits in the middle of a shooting gallery. Irony personified.

  24. avatar mirgc says:

    This judges ruling is early similar to the NewYork Judges upholding of the SAFE act

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367491/new-yorks-fact-free-gun-ruling-john-r-lott-jr

    Including relying on the Mother Jones article (its buried in Judge Catherine C. Blakes ruling).

    I think it would behoove the gun-control side to learn from these rulings in order to create better arguments to counter these judges arguments upfront. Or at least make it even more obvious these judges are going into these court cases with their minds already made up,

  25. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

    Seems like she’s just kickin’ that can on up the food chain, really.

  26. avatar Adam says:

    Didn’t those guys at the tattoo shop in St Louis just lawfully use ARs to defend their business during a period of civil unrest? That alone seems to invalidate the judge’s “serious doubts”

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Didn’t happen in Maryland, so the judge doesn’t consider it. She specifically says instances of self defense (which apparently is the only “lawful” use for a firearm…does that mean that if you haven’t had to defend yourself with it, then you’re breaking the law?) in Maryland were not presented as proof.

  27. avatar Tim Clarey says:

    a change of venue is need on the appeal different judge different count this is still infringing on the right to bear arms and have arms equal to the military

  28. avatar Mina says:

    The standard “used to be” (my understanding here) that if an arm was in common use, that common use to INCLUDE military use (minus fully automatic)

    What changed?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      The venue.

  29. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    “Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home . . .”

    Complete claptrap. She obviously created this contention out of whole cloth because she needed a “truth” on which to hand her predisposed ruling. So, lacking a viable truth, she simply created one to fit her legal need. To do this she had to be willfully ignorant of actual gun ownership in America, so much so that her intentional lack of knowledge alone out to be enough to impeach her ruling.

    1. avatar Jay-El says:

      @Garrison Hall

      Excellent points. I can’t help but wonder what is the standard to which a court itself is held when weighing evidence? In a civil suit the jury typically decides on based on “preponderance of the evidence.” In a criminal trial the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Does “serious doubt” even rise to either one of those standards?

      What’s more, who came up with such a narrow description of the word “use”? She seems to be basing her ruling on the idea that if a firearm is not actively used in self-defense, it’s not “in use.” That’s like saying seat belts aren’t being “used” if they’re simply being worn rather than protecting someone in a crash.

      We know that as more people are issued CCWs, crime goes down. Clearly all those CCW carriers are not shooting criminals, and the mere ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is having a deterrent effect. How can the legal ownership of firearms or even a class of weapon be any different? Deterrence cannot be excluded as “in use.” I can’t believe that anyone, on either side of 2A issues, would want more people to fire their weapons in self-defense.

      Isn’t deterrence a huge, lawful and common “use” of firearms?

      1. avatar Paul G. says:

        Alarm systems provide many more false alarms than useful ones. Especially car alarms. This should qualify alarms as a useless nuisance that wastes LEO time responding to false incidents. Outlaw them.

  30. avatar Danny C-W says:

    WHOA WHOA WHOA.

    That last line is completely false.
    All of the weapons MD has deemed to be “Assault Weapons” are already registered with the state. If one owned one prior to Oct 1, 2013, they’re in the clear to continue owning them. MD has no legal mechanism to confiscate theses firearms.

    The provisions in the Senate version of SB281 (The FSA of 2013) that required re-registration or be deemed a felon, were struck out by the House. The enrolled bill features none of that.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Takes them one day to change a law.

      1. avatar Danny C-W says:

        As bad as MD is, it’s not -that- bad.
        MD residents are not as legally hampered as those in NY, NJ, or MA.
        The Legislature could never have pulled the BS that happened in NY’s. Also, while not defeating the ban entirely, citizens testimony here did water down the passed law substantially.

        1. avatar VB says:

          Oh really. I live in Maryland and as far I as I can see all we need to do is wait for the next legislative session for the next kick in the “OO”. I watched the crowds line up to testify 100 to 1 against and I also watched the legislative pusher (Frosh) play chess on his computer while the people testified. No worry on his face about any wrath from the SHEEPLE.

        2. avatar Danny C-W says:

          VB (I don’t know why I can’t reply directly to you).

          The chess player was Raskin, not Frosh.
          Having said that, yes, many of them are bad. In the 2013 House session, I watched delegates sleep, look at lolcats on facebook, watch college sports, and mess with ipads…
          I watched Cardin flee the testimony on his own bill right after introducing it in the 2014 Sen. Jud. Committee. Frosh was absent a great deal from that meeting as well. We also watched Brochin trying to save face by introducing a bill that would have actually affected criminals — he got called out on it though by a citizen.

          There are many crooks here, but there are good folks and the more good folks that leave the state, the more screwed we are.

          Had you, myself, and the thousands of others not inundated the Senators’ and Delegates’ offices with faxes, phone calls, e-mails, and testified against the bills — they would have passed as introduced. They did not.

        3. avatar Jus Bill says:

          But it still sucks in comparison to VA and WV across the river. And what about DE and PA? Even DC has the potential to suck less.

          We need to DRAG people to the polls this Fall.

  31. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

    The judge ripped the plaintiffs’ lawyers a new one… They did a poor job of highlighting the deficiencies in the defense experts’ opinions.

    As for the substance of the case, it appears that the judge is saying that not enough people own AR-15s for it to be a weapon “commonly possessed.” I guess that means for the rest of us that we need to get our credit cards out. The judge also pointed out that “assault weapons” are used disproportionally in mass shootings (only owned by 1% of the population, but used at a much higher rate in mass shootings)- which is at once both a stupid and brilliant conclusion to draw from the evidence. Stupid, as just because all sharks swim does not mean that all who swim are sharks, and brilliant because it is essentially the same rationale that brings us so many bad laws (“If it saves just one life…”).

    Of course, what this really comes down to is what your philosophy is about government. The judge believes that the ban is “reasonably adapted to a substantial government interest,” and bases that on the fact that none of the fact witnesses could find a case in MD where someone defended themselves by firing an AR-15, or firing more than 10 rounds from a handgun. She was also persuaded by the testimony of the police. The plaintiffs either chose not, or were unable to find a persuasive witness to rebut the police. The tie is ALWAYS going to go to law enforcement in a case like this, which is a political problem because apparently no chief LEO was willing to stick his/her neck out to say that these bans are worthless.

    Notwithstanding the judge, the plaintiffs got severely outmaneuvered on this one… It’s really jumps out how many times the plaintiffs misstated the law, or made very poor arguments that were easy to dismiss. It is apparent that the judge does not know firearms well, and the State spoon fed her while the plaintiffs handed her a bunch of raw food and asked her to cook it.

    This is bad — however dishonest you might think judges who are anti-2nd A are, and however much you may think the judge was going to do this way anyway, this case – especially the evidence used and the reasoning used by the judge, provides a road-map for upholding these stupid bans.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Don’t know the facts myself, but this sounds like a really solid analysis. I may have to partially retract my comment below if the plaintiffs performed as badly as you say. But at least other litigants can learn from their mistakes.

    2. avatar mirgc says:

      Which is why people need to study this, and the NewYork SAFE ruling, to get better arguments in front of the judge. It can be done.

    3. avatar John M. says:

      Good analysis. Perhaps future lawyers on our side of these debates could point out that every single one of those CLEOs sends his officers out with >10 round mags, day or night, and they all at least keep AR-pattern rifles around in case things get hairy.

      This ruling was complete bull.

    4. avatar Chris says:

      Is your analysis of this case limited to the judge’s opinion?

      You said, “which is a political problem because apparently no chief LEO was willing to stick his/her neck out to say that these bans are worthless.” But that was actually a point of contention in this suit. A representative of the Maryland State Police (I believe the head of the firearms licensing division) was sent before the General Assembly to give his thoughts on the then-bill, and one of Governor Martin O’Malley’s lawyers told the MSP rep not to answer a question from a legislator about the effectiveness of the law. In a sworn affidavit submitted as evidence in the case, he stated that had he been allowed to answer he would have said the law would have had no effect. And when he asked the lawyer why she wouldn’t let him give an answer to the Assembly, she said the bill was not about policy, just votes.

  32. avatar Ralph says:

    Judge Blake is simply upholding the legacy of her mentor, Bill Clinton. They are both withered, old, gungrabbing b1tches.

  33. avatar Taco says:

    And all this time i thought “shall not be infringed” meant no infringement of ANY kind whatsoever…but what do I know…I’m just a citizen…

    1. avatar Kevin L says:

      You misspelled serf

    2. avatar Paul G. says:

      You have to stop relying on simple, easy to understand definitions of words. The founding fathers never would have done such a thing (sarc). It takes a judges robes to accurately define simple words into something that in no way resembles the layman’s definition. That’s why the founding father’s gave the courts the power to determine constitutionality…they just forgot to put it into the Constitution. Really, they just forgot.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Actually it’s the secret goggles that let them read “, except when we feel like it.” written in invisible ink right after “shall not be infringed.”

  34. avatar Jim R says:

    This ruling could open the door for bans in other states, as well as give fodder for NY and CA to argue “See? Our restrictions are fine under your Constitution. So be glad we PERMIT you to have what you have.”

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      District court rulings have no precedential value at all. Fortunately.

  35. avatar Sammy says:

    How can this be anything but infringement?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      It can’t. This is plain old tyranny.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Business as usual in Maryland, home of Spiro Agnew. The best government that money can buy.

  36. avatar Another Robert says:

    District judges–you can find one to swallow any argument you come up with. When in front of a duffer like this one, the best you can do is make sure and develop a good record for appeal. And yes, she may very well be consciously pursuing a gun-grabbing agenda, but that doesn’t keep her from being an idiot. Seriously, ARs are “unusual”? And a double-barrel shotgun is not “dangerous”?

  37. avatar the ruester says:

    The way I see this, it’s like the Obamacare ruling where “state” was supposed to mean “government.” She reads the Heller decision as revolving around self defense, as though at issue was the right of the plaintiff to defend himself, when the issue resolved was actually that of his right to OWN a gun in the first place. She is basically telling Roberts that the decision is written so poorly as to convince her that it only pertains to self defense. If that were the case, of course, the government could simply declare the nation “crime free” whenever the homicide rate dips below a certain level and insist that NO weapons are covered under common use any longer.

  38. avatar Sophist2k1 says:

    I find this part superbly interesting:

    “particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right”

    Try as I might, I can’t see the phrase “self-defense in the home” in the Second Amendment, or in any of the many debates concerning it, whether in the Federalist Papers, or in the Congressional record of the time.

    I DO see numerous references to preventing government tyranny, over-reach, and preserving the ability of the people to resist such tyranny:

    A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is “a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    Ah, but we live in a Brave New World indeed. I wonder what other Amendments we might re-examine in light of this novel legal doctrine of “at the core of” interpreted as whatever the judge feels like it ought to be, rather than actually looking at what was “at the core of” said Amendments when they were debated, passed, and ratified.

  39. avatar JAS says:

    How many AR15s are in the hands of law abiding citizens in this country?

    I suspect that the number is so large as to make AR15s “usual” rather than “unusual”

    That’s the crux of the argument, and her assertion cannot stand that kind of scrutiny. And SCOTUS cannot argue that point either.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      I would like to add to your comment; you know what guns ARE uncommon, unusual, and used mostly for criminal purposes? “Smart guns.”

  40. avatar Tyler McCoy says:

    The entire premise of the ruling is based on a false pretense. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with what anyone else comonly owns (although I feel it necessary to mention that AR variations are the most popular rifle for civilians in the US ). Self defense use is irrelevant. The 2A protects the right of the PEOPLE to bear ARMS for the purpose of regulating the militia!

  41. avatar Jake says:

    Hate to pick nits, but Maryland isn’t specified as the state until the fourth paragraph.

  42. avatar BDub says:

    Did the lawyers not enter into evidence any numbers regarding defensive uses and ownership of the weapons in question – besides and in spite of the facts that certain laws and rulings serve to prevent certain weapons entering into such popularity? Or, did the Judge just flat out ignore all facts and render an emotional and unfounded opinion, as a legal opinion?

    1. avatar Mediocrates says:

      Federal judges have been known to just “make them up”.

    2. avatar Chris says:

      Yes, they even brought up the case a few months back of the woman in Detroit who protected her kids with a rifle from the teenagers who stormed her house. I think the consensus was that there were 7 million or so ARs in civilian hands, but then the judge said this only came out to 1% of the population or something and therefore it’s not common. Never mind the fact this law bans a lot more than just ARs and AKs.

  43. avatar Kevin L says:

    Here I was, a serf in MD, hoping to buy an AK… 🙁

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Maybe if you move to AR you can buy an AK, or you could move to AK to buy an AR.

  44. avatar MIke says:

    I find it hard to believe that no officer in the entire state of Maryland has ever shot a suspect with an AR-15. Any such action would HAVE to be termed as a ‘defensive use.’ Otherwise it could be labeled as an ‘offensive use,’ and Lord knows that no Maryland peace officer has ever been involved in an offensive action.

  45. avatar Doug Knaus says:

    This is why we—this community—MUST rally around the Republican Party and the NRA. The next two elections are about two people: Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. Specifically, who will appoint and confirm their replacements, as well as those who will serve on the SCoTUS farm teams. If the GOP doesn’t take and hold the Senate and win the White House, Judge Blake may be a replacement for one of the Tonys. The current SCoTUS score is 4-4, with Kennedy being the tie breaker. SCOTUS Justice Blake would make EVERY SCoTUS 2A vote a 4-5 loser for us. We could wind up losing 3-6 every time if we sit on our hands.
    I’d like to see a libertarian takeover of the GOP. McCain, Graham and Cochran are not my first choices. BUT, if they make you refrain from being an NRA membership and aggressively backing GOP candidates, you are NOT part of the solution.
    We need to focus on the words of the great philosopher Al Davis: “Just Win, Baby.” (Someone must have said “There is no glory in defeat.”)

  46. avatar Steve says:

    Antis continually fall over their own arguments.

    AR15s are some of the most common arms in the US. AR15s fit the bill of “arms that can be used by a militia for militia purposes”. AR15s are not “unusual” as they, again, are fairly common not only for private ownership, but at countless police agencies.

    Not a single argument against AR15s but “in favor” of other firearms can withstand the logic test. But what am I saying, antis don’t use logic, they rely on emotion and fear.

  47. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    WOW! Just….WOW! Just when you thought you’ve heard all the moronic, convoluted, and irrational statements about what the 2nd amendment does, and does not mean, by a Judge, much less a federal Judge, then you open your glassies and read something like this. So, exactly what are the qualification for being a Judge…..? I think we need some more stringent guidelines about who gets to be allowed to serve as a Judge, other than you must be human, and currently breathing. You can feel the self-entitlement spilling out from her ruling.

  48. avatar barnbwt says:

    So they’ve retreated from telling us which guns are suitable for us to hunt with, to now claiming authority to dictate that which is suitable for the purpose of self defense (apparently the new “core” of the 2nd Amendment, as opposed to hunting or militiamen like it was last week). So we’re making progress. If we can set them back one more logical step, they’ll be claiming the government has authority to declare which weapons are suitable for opposing it. That’s when we’ll have won, since no infringement will withstand legal challenge with such flawed logics as an underpinning.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      They already are claiming that government has authority to declare which weapons are suitable for opposing it. Government just isn’t saying it outright. They know damn well what the 2A means. It’s too obvious for them not to. Government has been disarming the People, thereby the militia, for a long time now.

  49. avatar John Dalton says:

    Obviously this liberal rich girl judge LOVES being overturned on appeal.

  50. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Anybody confused now? The Federal Government will “interpret” the Constitution to suit their needs.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      It began with Marbury v. Madison. When that abomination stood uncorrected, the writing was on the wall. Each of us have but one lifetime to be free and resist tyranny. Government is practically immortal if left unchecked. We measure by days, weeks, months, and years. Government measures by generations. It must stop in this generation, otherwise the cycle repeats and government always has the upper hand; moreso now than it ever did.

  51. avatar gemalo says:

    Let’s apply this logic in other ways.
    “The right to own cars is not unlimited,” adding, “with respect to the types of automobiles, the Court found that the XXXXX Amendment does not protect ‘a right to keep and drive any auto whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’”

    She added that the only types of cars protected by the XXXXX amendment are cars that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” alleging that muscle cars and those with large displacement engines do not fall into that categorization and therefore are not protected by the constitution.
    ..or how about this..
    “The right to be a free black person is not unlimited,” adding, “with respect to the types of persons protected, the Court found that the XXXXX Amendment does not protect ‘a right to live or work wherever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’”

    She added that the only types of African-Americans protected by the XXXXX amendment are “people that are typically law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” alleging that dreadlocks and those with tattoos do not fall into that categorization and therefore are not protected by the constitution.
    Sorry if this might offend anyone, but it is only an analogy.

  52. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    She added that the only types of arms protected by the second amendment are “weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” AR rifles can be used all sorts of legal purposes such as plinking, hunting, target shooting, and possible self defense..

    The plaintiffs argued that assault weapons could be used to defend oneself, but the state pointed out that they could not name a single incident in which a Marylander had ever used an assault weapon to defend oneself in a dangerous situation, and neither could the Maryland State Police. Where the plaintiffs screwed up is hanging the uses all in one basket..

  53. avatar Xanthro says:

    The Second Amendment isn’t.
    The right of self defense being inherent, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    Because it’s not about self defense.
    The Second Amendment is about protecting private ownership of MILITARY grade firearms.
    A Well Regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    It’s about the people being armed well enough to form a well regulated militia in order to repel foreign invasion or enforce the Constitution of the United States. That means anything up to and including military weapons is protected by the Second Amendment.
    A Well Regulated militia is not one armed with handguns for personal protection.

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      No it is not. The people at large will never become a well regulated militia The well regulated militia is found in the Constitution under powers of Congress. That militia exists “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” and represents a threat to the people. It is the right of the people to be armed to oppose that militia.

      1. avatar Kyle says:

        The militia mentioned in the Constitution is the general population and is to both to serve as a check on the State if the State ever becomes tyrannical, but also can be called upon by the Congress to defend the nation, and also to suppress insurrections (which are also a historical threat to societies). Insurrections are not the same as resistance to a tyrannical government.

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          The Constitution is not a long nor difficult read, maybe you should actually read it before making ridiculous comments about it. 10 US code is the only place that the militia of the general populace is mentioned (the Unregulated militia), and even it is not all inclusive. That is not a part of the Constitution, by the way.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Paul G: Nice try with the unregulated ~ unorganized switch but no dice.

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
          (b) The classes of the militia are—
          (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
          (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          I didn’t have the code handy….but the two words are very similar in meaning anyways. My point is still valid.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Paul G: By using unregulated, one could incorrectly infer that the unorganized militia of 10 USC was not being referred to under the Second Amendment’s A well regulated militia when 10 USC’s description of unorganized militia more closely describes the militia described in the Constitution than does 10 USC’s organized militia. The constitutional term regulated militia has been misconstrued to mean the National Guard or regular military too often by government, courts, and the uneducated for such a misuse of terms to stand uncorrected.

        5. avatar Paul G. says:

          Your comprehension really sucks. First, the BoR does not exist to create a militia. A well-regulated militia is described to a “T” in the powers of Congress, and is absolutely not “all of the people” Regulated, or made to be regular, would include similarity of equipment and arms, training, tactics and chain of command. The people at large are anything but that. The preface statement merely exists to elaborate one of the perils of government, military power that can be brought to bear against the people. The post-revolutionists were quite cognizant of this threat, and feared the new government repeating the old in that regard. Thus that statement prefaces the enumeration of the people’s right to be armed, especially (but not solely) as resistance to government tyranny.

          Reading is fundamental. Include the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers in your reads, especially 26 and 28.

        6. avatar Paul G. says:

          Congress shall have the power:
          To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

          Not a bunch of people at large trained mish-mash and armed with what they had in their closet. Training prescribed by Congress, overseen by the states. This was modified a bit by later acts, but the case is quite clear that this is the well-regulated militia, our Nat’l Guard today, and a threat to the people as agents of the government.,

          If the 2A said “crime being inevitable in a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms….”, would you think the people have a right to arms in order to become criminals?

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Paul G: I do not disagree with your description of a well regulated militia or of the purpose of its mention in the Second Amendment. My contention was merely with your intended or unintended usage of the term unregulated militia. My comprehension is fine and I have read quite a bit. However, you sir, might need a lesson or two in civility.

          I will give one such lesson now. If your misuse of the term was indeed accidental then I apologize for any harsh tone conveyed in my initial reply.

        8. avatar Paul G. says:

          If you thought this was uncivil, I am truly astonished. When someone goes about making grossly erroneous statements about the Constitution, the degree of civility of the response is not problematic. Providing proper information is the idea. Just as you were correct in that 10 USC uses unorganized, not unregulated.
          It is not erroneous to equate the well-regulated militia with the National Guard. Look up the definition of the militia under powers of Congress. That is the militia that government would use to subjugate the people at large. The well-regulated militia is a threat, not what the people make up.
          Those continuing to think and promulgate all the people as a well-regulated militia ordained by the 2A need to be corrected post-haste.

        9. avatar John in Ohio says:

          This gentleman explains it much better than I could. (Although, there are probably a few small points about which I would disagree with him.)

          http://youtu.be/cvtIb3OzHsc

        10. avatar Paul G. says:

          I’m sorry, but he lost me in the first sentences. He tries to use prior statutes that do not inform the Constitution to alter the clear, simple, easily comprehended Constitution itself. There are many wordy charlatans. Not all are liberals. The law of the land is the Constitution, it is not over-ridden by state militia statutes, regardless the chronology. Of course, the militia organized and trained under powers of Congress predates the 2A, and in itself disproves any possibility of the 2A enabling a well-regulated militia of the people. Trying to call the people at large well-regulated is ridiculous. One must have organization to have any regularity, as a start.
          People love to crow about being part of a “well-regulated militia”, and will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to accommodate their egos. They are part of the problem. If they can wrongly reinterpret simple words in the Constitution, liberals will do it as well.
          Don’t take the words of charlatans, do your own reading. The documents are readily available online.

        11. avatar John in Ohio says:

          If anyone wishes to hear him speak in more detail, this is part 1 of a multi-part interview on the subject.

          http://youtu.be/Owb5dMBR3w8

        12. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Paul G.: I have read things for myself. Dr. Vieira is more articulate on the subject. If you really wish to consider his argument then please watch the first two (IIRC) videos from the interview that I posted. The first video I posted was just summary so you wouldn’t be taking much of your time watching it. Or not… that’s your choice. I don’t consider the man a charlatan. If you have evidence that he is then I’d be interested.

          http://www.fame.org/HTM/Edwin%20Vieira.htm
          Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

          For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions

          He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume

        13. avatar Paul G. says:

          You listen to his stuff….every time he talks about pre-Constitutional statutes, remember, they do not color the Constitution nor over-ride it. Similarly, those who seek to use English law to reinterpret the Constitution do a disservice to those who penned it. If we wanted English law, we had no need for our own. It may have been a source, but it is not the same. He is a charlatan, he is so schooled in lying by manipulation of fact, it comes naturally.

        14. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Paul G.: It would be a shame, IMHO, if you didn’t at least give his work an honest look. You both present as intelligent, sincere, and knowledgeable individuals. I don’t think that your take on the constitutional militia is that far from his.

          http://www.edwinvieira.com/edwin71.htm
          To this author’s knowledge, at the present time no State either has a fully constitutional Militia in place or intends to raise such a Militia, notwithstanding all the problems of “homeland security” that confront this Nation.

        15. avatar John in Ohio says:

          every time he talks about pre-Constitutional statutes, remember, they do not color the Constitution nor over-ride it.

          Nor does he claim that they override the Constitution. To the contrary, he gives it as background and is a staunch constitutionalist. Much as I assumed that you were somewhat of an anti when I hastily made my crass “no dice” comment; I believe that you are making unsubstantiated assumptions about what I am thinking and what Dr. Vieira is stating. Much of what you have posted in this sub-thread I agree with. The points that you have raised about the militia and the Constitution he has addressed in his writings, books, speeches, and interviews. If you only wish to listen to your own words and not to those of a very learned and published scholar on the subject then more the pity. I stated that the National Guard and the regular military are not the constitutional militia referred to in the Second Amendment. I made no other claims that you seem to be arguing against in this thread. Also, if you have any real proof that Dr. Vieira is a charlatan then I would honestly appreciate the information.

        16. avatar Paul G. says:

          He can address all he wants…he cannot rewrite the Constitution to suit his ramblings. You calling me an “anti” is beyond asinine. All I am saying is people need to stop believing the ramblings of those who choose to reinterpret the Constitution. The Bill of Rights has nothing whatsoever to do with creating any militia. Anyone attempting to sell that line should know it will lead to political workarounds to eliminate the 2A as a person’s right. Yep, it plays into the hands of “collective rights” anti-gun schemes.
          The 2A only mentions the militia, a regulated militia already empowered to Congress to create, as exemplar of the threats that the people may face, threats that the people will need arms to equalize.
          That is hardly “anti” sentiment. The second amendment creates no need for any state to create a militia, nor any people to belong to one. It does not prevent this from occurring, but it does not state that militia duty is the premise for being armed. It is the converse, the need to oppose a government militia, that is the only reason the militia is mentioned.
          I thought you said you did the reading?
          He rambles about state militias and calls them Constitutional militias, those militias would have to face Congressional sanction and oversight, like the National Guard does. Oops. It says so right in the Constitution, I guess he ignores the parts he doesn’t like, or “interprets” them.

        17. avatar John in Ohio says:

          He can address all he wants…he cannot rewrite the Constitution to suit his ramblings.

          Does he do that? I haven’t seen or heard it yet.

          You calling me an “anti” is beyond asinine.

          Please compose yourself. I did not call you an “anti”. If you would read what I wrote again then it would be clear what I meant. I am not calling you an “anti” Paul G. If you want further clarification, please just ask.

          All I am saying is people need to stop believing the ramblings of those who choose to reinterpret the Constitution. The Bill of Rights has nothing whatsoever to do with creating any militia. Anyone attempting to sell that line should know it will lead to political workarounds to eliminate the 2A as a person’s right. Yep, it plays into the hands of “collective rights” anti-gun schemes.

          I agree with you and I don’t see yet where Dr. Vieira has disagreed with this either.

          The 2A only mentions the militia, a regulated militia already empowered to Congress to create, as exemplar of the threats that the people may face, threats that the people will need arms to equalize.

          This is probably where we disagree. This is about which Dr. Vieira does such a good job of explaining.

          That is hardly “anti” sentiment.

          I didn’t state that it was.

          The second amendment creates no need for any state to create a militia, nor any people to belong to one. It does not prevent this from occurring, but it does not state that militia duty is the premise for being armed. It is the converse, the need to oppose a government militia, that is the only reason the militia is mentioned.

          We agree.

          I thought you said you did the reading?

          In earnest, about 15 years ago; on and off since then but more infrequently as time goes on.

          He rambles about state militias and calls them Constitutional militias, those militias would have to face Congressional sanction and oversight, like the National Guard does. Oops. It says so right in the Constitution, I guess he ignores the parts he doesn’t like, or “interprets” them.

          Specifics, please. I didn’t read or hear him stating that.

        18. avatar Paul G says:

          You stated ” much as I assumed you were somewhat of an anti”….don’t you even know your own words? You also have implored me to settle down when nobody is acting up. Nice tactics to try and taint a discussion, inferring emotions not present. Vieira claims no state has a constitutional militia at this time, he is wrong, they are the Natl Guard. There may be some deviations from the Constitution in that regard, but errant details do not destroy the premise. In most ways, nearly all, the NG fits the Constitutional definition.
          Perhaps doing your own research would avail you better data. Also, refraining from seeing any who bursts your bubble as an aggressor would be recommended. If you see everyone as hostile you may have anger issues of your own that need treating.

        19. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Paul G.: You stated: You stated ” much as I assumed you were somewhat of an anti”….don’t you even know your own words?

          But I had stated: Much as I assumed that you were somewhat of an anti when I hastily made my crass “no dice” comment; I believe that you are making unsubstantiated assumptions about what I am thinking and what Dr. Vieira is stating. Much of what you have posted in this sub-thread I agree with.

          Those are my own words. How do they, in context, not mean basically the following? “Hey, I made a hasty and incorrect assumption in my initial reply and so I was unnecessarily harsh about it. I also believe that you might be making some incorrect assumptions.” Notice that I never called you and anti. I did not infer that you were an anti. I merely wrote one sentence with a suspicion that you were an anti. I have apologized early on for the tone and have clarified that I do not think you are an anti. So, what is the problem?

          You also have implored me to settle down when nobody is acting up. Nice tactics to try and taint a discussion, inferring emotions not present.

          Tone is difficult to convey in written form. You seemed convinced that I called you an anti when I did not. The tone of the writing seemed a bit off. Meh. Whatever.

          Vieira claims no state has a constitutional militia at this time, he is wrong, they are the Natl Guard.

          I agree with his conclusion but not yours.

          There may be some deviations from the Constitution in that regard, but errant details do not destroy the premise.

          The Devil is in the details.

          In most ways, nearly all, the NG fits the Constitutional definition.
          Perhaps doing your own research would avail you better data.

          You keep repeating this. I’ve done my own research, albeit years ago. Are you going to repeat this in every reply? Is the next repeated phrase going to be, “Connect the dots!”? I sincerely hope not.

          Also, refraining from seeing any who bursts your bubble as an aggressor would be recommended. If you see everyone as hostile you may have anger issues of your own that need treating.

          Nope, ain’t even mad bro! 😀 Scratching my head and going, “huh?”… Yep, doing a lot of that with the non-fact parts of your replies. The facts, however are good. You are obviously intelligent.

          Are you done now?

        20. avatar Paul G. says:

          When you project anger on others, it is typically indicative of an angry person on your end.

          When you cannot frame your own arguments, but instead post someone else’s video, you have no argument of your own. That is quite different from making an argument, and using references to bolster it.

          The devil is in the details….so again you have no argument, instead you turn to cute phrases? Do you know the details? They are few, and do not negate reality.
          Again:
          Congress shall have the power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
          You tell me the “details” that differ in this description of the militia, the Constitutional one, and the Nat’l Guard. Look hard. Check the Dick Act, and other Militia Acts after, which revised it. The “details” are debatable, not decisive. If one really looks at the above sentence, the details are moot. Congress does reserve power in relation to the militia in the Constitution….which by the way, is the Supreme Law of the Land. People always seem to forget that little detail when they start making claims about state militia statutes and the like. They forget that the state accepted the Constitution when it joined the union.

          Also of note, see that Congress has the power to provide for arming the militia. That stands in stark contrast to all the other claims doesn’t it? Quite different from “run what ya brung”. Actually, negating the idea completely. It destroys the concept of the people keeping and bearing personal arms as the militia. Congress did not provide for your arms in any way. It doesn’t affect the concept of the people bearing arms as a check to the militia. But never let facts get in your way.

        21. avatar John in Ohio says:

          * Correction in bold to the above post. The editor wasn’t working immediately after posting.

          “I merely wrote one sentence with a suspicion that you were somewhat of an anti.”

        22. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Paul G.: First, you continue to assume positions of the other person(s) and then argue as if your assumptions are fact. This smacks of ‘magical thinking’. Second, you continue to attribute words and context which are clearly not in the text that I have written. When the action is repeated, this is dishonesty. Third, you claim that I am angry and projecting when there isn’t any evidence in my text of that. I wrote that you needed a some civility and suggested that you to compose yourself as I obviously didn’t call you what you claimed I did. (There maybe another but I’m not wasting the time to find it. I don’t believe that I wrote “angry” or “anger” in any of it.) So, you are either lying or projecting. Taken all together, I think that your behavior in this sub-thread indicates you might be off a little psychologically.

          You are correct that I have not directly argued my position. Early on, I stated that I wasn’t prepared to articulate it. I deferred to a person with the educational background and experience to do just that. (That is just one of many points and statements that you have outright ignored or misrepresented.) This is the way the real world of the grown-up professionals work. We find people with specific expertise to handle presentations that we don’t have the time, ability, or inclination to do. I began with a small correction and conveyed a tone that was a bit harsh. I apologized for the unwarranted harshness. You continued with repeated statements and nonsense. You appear to want to read your own words but ignore those of another. This is a waste of everyone’s time and of TTAG’s bandwidth.

        23. avatar Paul G. says:

          So now you wish to infer that I am psychologically troubled. What are your qualifications for such an assessment? It is quite unusual to make such assessments without face to face interviews according to my wife, who has done such assessments for a living.
          I make no false attributions, in fact I included quotes when discussing your words. Your own words, where you called for civility and “settling down”. Remember? Go look them up. Maybe your memory is non-existent. Good thing the words are on the internet forever. When discussing your source charlatan, perhaps you are not as familiar with his work as you should be.
          You seem to keep resorting to insinuations and playing the victim, all figments of your own imagination. It is all here on the internet for all to see. Shame on you. My wife no longer practices, so I cannot offer you an appointment.
          In the real grown-up world we do not rely on others to make our arguments. We may source other people’s work to bolster our own arguments, but we do not have others do our work for us. You cannot even get away with doing that on term paper. Term papers are pre-grown-up stuff. Have you ever written one?

    2. avatar mirgc says:

      It is about self-defense. It just doesn’t matter if it is against a single individual breaking into your house, or an entire nation coming to take your life and liberty. Or if it is a ‘militia’ of one, or an entire community of able bodied individuals.

  54. avatar Steve Clark says:

    By her own definition an AR-15 or AK-47 is acceptable since they’re commonly owned by law-abiding citizens.

  55. avatar Dave357 says:

    Surely, pistol magazines with over 10 rounds are extremely common. How does the judge justify a ban on those?

  56. avatar Capybara says:

    “Bloomberg flunky to assistant – Okay, we can now cut that check to Judge Blake’s re-election campaign. She did what we told her to do, yeah, make it for 75 Gs.”

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Except federal judges aren’t elected, they are appointed.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Money wired to offshore account – check!

  57. avatar Tom says:

    On the basis of this ruling the exemptions and carve outs for police should be unconstitutional. There is no need for police to have “assault weapons” if civilians have no need.

  58. avatar Kyle says:

    Federal judge upholds assault weapons ban (with stupid reasoning to boot). And the Sun rises in the East. Nothing surprising to me here.

    Whether a type of gun has been used for self-defense in the home is irrelevant to whether possession of it is a right. And the Second Amendment is not about solely self-defense in the home. The whole bit about the right to keep and bear arms not being an unlimited right is a canard. Of course it isn’t unlimited, but it doesn’t mean that government gets to arbitrarily ban guns that it arbitrarily decides to give a specific label too. If someone tried this with regards to speech or books, it would be shot down in the blink of an eye.

  59. avatar Silverscreamer says:

    I am glad I moved from Maryland. The last straw was the gun ban. They will do their best to infringe Marylander’s rights. I have little faith the courts and politicians with protect individual freedoms.

  60. avatar g boyd says:

    It all just sounds like “pretzel logic” to me. The goal here is to ban ALL semi-automatic weapons as has been done in the UK and Australia. We HAVE TO keep these judges feet to the fire and stop putting in gun banners in the Supreme court of the USA. Appeal until they turn blue and keep on fighting in the courts at all levels and states.

  61. avatar GS650G says:

    Once again an enlightened jurist decides what is and what is not to be had by the people. Funny how criminals ignore her and continue to do whatever they please.

  62. “The plaintiffs argued that assault weapons could be used to defend oneself, but the state pointed out that they could not name a single incident in which a Marylander had ever used an assault weapon to defend oneself in a dangerous situation, and neither could the Maryland State Police.”

    Uh, duh. If it’s illegal to currently own that type of weapon then it’s not too likely that it would be used legally in a defensive situation in that state. Look to the truly free states for your info you commies!

  63. avatar Mark says:

    That judge must be a complete whack job. She totally ignores the fact that both U.S. v. Miller and Heller specifically affirm that the 2A protects the right to possess weapons that would commonly be used by militia. Like, I don’t know… maybe an AR-15?

    Very scary stuff. Kinda surreal, too. The public rifle range just down the road from me is run by the Sheriff’s Department. Virtually every time I am there, at least one shooter is using an AR-15. Apparently our Sheriff’s deputies are blind? Those people can’t be possessing those rifles for legal purposes, can they?

  64. avatar rlc2 says:

    IANAL, but if the judges ruling was so unsound, that a reverse on appeal, to SCOTUS, would set precedent, later, then this weak appeal could be seen as a chess move, a sacrifice, to set up the next, strategic win. Is it too much to consider it as by suckering the judge into territory needingb resolution later, when ripe, but requiring more foundational decisions in the meantime. Like Peruta?

  65. avatar GunTotinDem says:

    Sounds like the plaintiffs lawyers screwed the pooch on this one. Poorly prepared on a last minute challenge. I think her decision left big openings for challenges. If they will be heard.

  66. avatar Scrubula says:

    Didn’t 40% of the TTAGers polled say they owned assault weapons for self defense?

  67. avatar Chubby says:

    SCOTUS WILL SAVE US!!!!!!!

    …………oh, wait……………

    ‘sigh’

  68. avatar Rich says:

    Why do they insist on calling a AR15 a assault rifle? Its just a rifle for christ sakes. If anything I call it a defensive rifle.

  69. avatar Anonymous says:

    It is unconstitutional. Very clearly. For Instance:

    The judge ruled that the ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines was not a violation of second-amendment rights. She agreed that a total ban on handguns, for example, would be a violation of the right to bear arms, but that a ban only on certain types of guns was legal.

    A ban on “certain types” of guns? Handguns are a certain type of gun. What if we enumerated every type of gun to be banned. That is legal by her definition. After every type is enumerated to be banned (legal) effectively all guns are banned. What exactly is an “assault rifle?” It is such a loose definition it can be applied to almost any gun. Why is a total ban on handguns (a type) a violation of the second amendment but a total ban on “assault rifles” (a type) not? Zero reasoning and logical deduction here. Makes absolutely no sense at all.

    She should have just been honest and said the following, “I’m afraid of guns, I’m afraid of you owning guns, and I have a capacity to take it from you.”

    “The right to bear arms is not unlimited,” adding, “with respect to the types of weapons protected, the Court found that the Second Amendment does not protect ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’”

    Actually this is what it says:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. So.. yes it is completely unlimited. If you don’t like it – maybe you should try to change it – and good luck with that. Alas no – lets make some unconstitutional laws that conflict with other statements on which this country was founded.

    She added that the only types of arms protected by the second amendment are “weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” alleging that assault weapons and those with large-capacity weapons do not fall into that categorization and therefore are not protected by the constitution.

    Where I am from everyone has an AR. They are the most popular rifle. This is why a hundred or more companies all make them and their components are typically interchangeable. In fact there are over 61 calibers that are chambered for the AR15. It is the most versatile gun in existence. So they are in fact weapons typically possessed and are very popular.

    The plaintiffs argued that assault weapons could be used to defend oneself, but the state pointed out that they could not name a single incident in which a Marylander had ever used an assault weapon to defend oneself in a dangerous situation, and neither could the Maryland State Police.

    So basically, the majority’s opinion is what matters and the minorities do not. Oh wait, that was actually what the bill of rights was made to address… hmm.

    “Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.”

    commonly possessed for lawful purpose? I would argue that they are commonly possessed for lawful purpose and that handguns are not. Typically crimes are committed with handguns not so called “assault rifles.” When was the last time anyone in a convenent store was held up with an AR or AK? Come on. Ridiculous statement.

    The 2nd amendment was not for hunting, sports, or self defense. It’s sole purpose was to place power in the hand of the people:

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
    – Samuel Adams

    “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.”
    – James Madison

    “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
    – Noah Webster

    “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”
    – George Mason

    “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.”
    – George Mason

    “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
    – Thomas Jefferson


    I think it was very clear what the founding fathers intended the 2nd amendment to be.

  70. avatar Anonymoose says:

    Gee…I wonder why no one uses “salt rofls” for defense in Maryland? There’s no way it could have anything to do with the fact that “salt wepunz” are banned from peasant-ownership there, or that liberal states like Maryland tend to think “home defense” means “calling the cops and waiting patiently while gangsters are raping and killing your family and burning down your house,” right?

  71. avatar John in Ohio says:

    particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right

    What Second Amendment is this court smoking?

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Should the People deem it necessary to resist government tyranny, undoubtedly government would NOT consider that “lawful use.” So called “assault rifles” are part of the very core of the Second Amendment. Court rulings like this deny its true intent.

  72. avatar DBM says:

    The Maryland law is so screwy it should be thrown out on that basis alone. Here are some examples: AR-15’s with “THICK” barrels and AR-10s are still cash and carry! Dragonov’s are legal to buy and own as long as they aren’t made in China, Mini-14s are legal (unless they have a folding stock and flash supressor) and the most nonsensical is the law outlaws M&P 9’s and 45’s but none of the other modles of M&P’s. Those are just a few exales.

  73. avatar Brad says:

    The judge is COMPLETELY incorrect in her logic. The legal standard isn’t:

    “the only types of arms protected by the second amendment are “weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” ”

    The legal standard is: any firearms that are normally carried by military personnel are protected by the 2nd Amendment. That includes semi-automatic rifles with 30-round clips.

    That is what it needs to be appealed on.

  74. avatar Ted says:

    Activist judges like this need to be removed from the bench.

    EVERYONE that values freedom needs to vote pro-gun. Liberal, conservative, libertarians and independents – hold your nose if necessary, but vote pro-gun.

    The right to the tools of self-defense crosses many political boundaries – even a few liberals carry guns. Gun ownership is hugely popular in the US – it’s time that this sleeping giant start demanding pro-gun candidates and voting accordingly.

    I’ve put away my feelings on abortion, gay rights, environment among others. None of those matter if the population is disarmed.

    I’m voting pro-gun until the day I die.

  75. avatar Steve says:

    It seems we too often beat our head against the wall. We ask the wrong question of “Why is not the AR a firearm that I can own in MD under 2a?” And we let the court off the hook.

    The court is relying on law that defines the AR, as an example, under the MD terms used such as assault long gun or copycat and generally accepted interpretation of restrictions on rights; to accepted use. We cannot put forth a case that pleads, in effect, that under 2a we should be able to have AR. It seems this may be the argument when reading (alright skimming) the ruling.

    Any case against must be based on challenge to the facts: the AR and any other firearm noted that is not fully auto or selectable is arbitrarily defined as non-accepted use. Look, the logic must be used aggressively. We should define these firearms as non-assault and then as acceptable use. There is case law and simply a volume of sales that support this.

    Next address the copycat where simply the look of the firearm will cause problems (assuming that this is the ‘benefit’ of the MSP in their testimony for the law), so then, if the court (law) is not also banning look alike BB guns, and look alike plastic models then the law is arbitrary and capricious.

    If the ‘assault weapon’ definition is discredited and then also the copycat definition It will be difficult for a judge to conclude against but if so the ruling would be a creative bit of fiction.

  76. avatar Sprite says:

    Why does no judge in the last 10 years remember the 1939 US Supreme Court Case, US v Miller that specifically said that military style weapons, suitable for use by a militia are protected…..

  77. avatar Joe R. says:

    Breaking News – MD sovereignty up for grabs. Who knew a little patch of dirt on a coast would give up before a fight but “Fatti maschil, Parole femine” (Manly deeds, Womanly words” sometimes gets inverted with that crowd, and they can bend-over-and-take it while I am taking my time to go save them.

    “Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all
    others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of
    friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into
    slavery…. Wherefore, if we must here-after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves?
    Why do it for another?” ( Paine Common Sense pg. 47)

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Let MD, their district justices and any concurring court, claw their way to irrelevance. By their own hand, they are running out of time and opportunity to get the right answer.

      Keep you guns for the end of America, so that you’ll have the means to demand a say in what comes next, as the founding fathers intended.

      Let the “Peaceniks for A_ _-rape” suffer some first before any reprise. (check your ammo load-out or scope-rings or something).

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        A N D . . . anyone check the list of her campaign contributors? All from the U.S., right?

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          She was appointed by Slick Willie.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Forget all you would like. I will remind you.

      Your government, from the POTUS to dog-catcher, are just your neighbors who needed jobs. The job doesn’t seek the man (unless you’re George Washington, and he begged to decline) the man seeks the job.

      It is We the People, of the People, for the People, by the People. Your value in the equation can never rise above “1”.

      “Stand feet shoulder-width in your largest foot gear, and draw a chalk-line around the soles of your shoes. The lines alone contain the ground upon which you are king, until, by you, I am made to move my feet.” TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012

      Anyone coming after your guns are merely attempting to disarm you for the next Civil War or War with China. They might say that’s not the case, but what would they say if it was?

  78. avatar Jus Bill says:

    If anyone cares to read the narrative along this Trail of Tears from start to finish, here’s the thread on Maryland Shooters:
    http://mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=148158

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email